Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, the first names in fake-news anchormen, drew throngs of exuberant supporters to Washington on Saturday for a televised and live-streamed joint rally that shut down streets, overloaded the transit system and flooded the Mall.

In a fraught political environment, with midterm elections looming and Democrats bracing for historic losses, the two comedians kept most of their three-hour show to nonpartisan bits, musical entertainment and gentle ribbing of the purported enemies of incivility.

But at the conclusion of the program, Stewart switching his black T-shirt and blazer for a suit and tie, argued that the rally’s intended butt of the joke was the level of discourse in Washington and cable television’s hyperbolic 24-hour news cycle. Political affiliations aside, he said, everyone throughout the country found a way to work together.

“The only place we don’t is here or on cable TV,” said Stewart, speaking against the backdrop of the Capitol building. In earnest terms that bordered on political rhetoric, he orated, “If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.”

Between noon and 3 p.m., Stewart and Colbert held forth from a stage on the opposite end of the Mall from the Lincoln Memorial steps, where conservative commentator Glenn Beck led a similarly vast and homogenous crowd two months ago. That rally, with its religious theme of “Restoring Honor,” had conservative political undertones and prompted Saturday’s satiric response.

The two rallies have proved a forum for two television audiences, which have become self-identifying political communities.

“This is my comedy channel” read a sign brandished with the FOX News logo and hoisted by Steven Crawford, who came from York, Pa. The other side of the sign, illustrated with a Comedy Central logo read: “This is my news channel.”

Democratic and Republican leaders argued that the comedic rally either boosted dear reserves of Democratic enthusiasm or foolishly spilled them across the Mall, instead of knocking doors in contested states and congressional districts. Young voters and progressives have increasingly turned to Comedy Central for political information, the remaining question was whether the progressives on the Mall — some of whom held such meta signs as “I Am Holding a Sign” — would actually take political marching orders from comedians.

In their closing remarks, neither Colbert nor Stewart was explicit in his demands. “Your presence is what I wanted,” Stewart stated simply.

I have been watching the Jon Stewart rally and my Tivo’s running a bit behind because I have been pausing to deal with life, but my jaw dropped wide open when Stewart introduced a man named “Yusuf.” That would be Yusuf Islam, the man formerly known as Cat Stevens, who then played a rendition of his song “Peace Train.”

That would be the same Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens who endorsed the Fatwah against Salman Rushdie. For instance, the New York Times reported (registration required) as follows in 1989:

The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, “I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.”

The singer, who adopted the name Yusuf Islam when he converted to Islam, made the remark during a panel discussion of British reactions to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s call for Mr. Rushdie to be killed for allegedly blaspheming Islam in his best-selling novel “The Satanic Verses.” He also said that if Mr. Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, “I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like.”

“I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is,” said Mr. Islam, who watched a preview of the program today and said in an interview that he stood by his comments.

Some, such as Talking Points Memo, have already dismissed this criticism of Islam’s appearance at the rally as a “right wing” concern, but there does seem to be somewhat of a disconnect between a rally calling for rationality in political discourse and a singer who once endorsed the idea of murdering someone for writing a book. Inviting a man like this to a rally to “restore sanity” was a mistake, and Stewart is likely to take some well-deserved criticism for it over the coming days.

“What exactly was this?” Mr. Stewart asks. “This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith. Or people of activism or to look down our noses at the heartland, or passionate argument or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies.”

“Not being able to be able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Partiers, or real bigots and Juan Williams or Rick Sanchez is an insult, not only to those people but to the racists themselves, who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate.”

“The press is our immune system,” Mr. Stewart says. “If it overreacts to everything, we actually get sicker. And perhaps eczema. And yet, with that being said, I feel good. Strangely, calmly good.”

In the news media, Mr. Stewart says, we hear of the fragility of our country, how we’re on the brink of catastrophe, how it’s a shame we can’t work together. “The truth is,” he says, “we do.”

Mr. Stewart invokes the metaphor of a traffic merger at the Lincoln Tunnel, “You go, then I’ll go.” “Sure, at some point there will be a selfish jerk who zips up the shoulder and cuts in at the last minute. But that individual is rare and he is scorned, and he is not hired as an analyst.”

Leaving aside the accusations of smugness that are likely to be leveled, this is actually a message worth listening to.

Thanks mostly to a 24/7/365 news cycle, political discourse in this country has largely descended to the level of a schoolyard screaming match. For both sides, what is said isn’t nearly as important as how loud it’s said, and whether or not your able to score some cheap political points against your opponent. It’s the reason that talk radio is mostly unlistenable and that cable news is mostly unwatchable, especially after 5pm. And, despite the fact that the people who consume that media are far from a majority of the country, it has somehow become the driving force in politics to the point where Republicans and Democrats both shape their message based on how they think it will play on Fox or MSNBC. That isn’t a nation where people are talking to each other, it’s a nation where people are talking at each other.

I don’t expect that anyone will really listen to what Stewart said. Partisans on both sides will draw their own conclusions, and the media will just continue to do whatever brings in the viewers and the ad dollars. In the meantime, American politics will continue to become more polarized and nothing of any real substances will be done to deal with the real problems facing the nation. A depressing prospect, I know, but in politics and in the media it’s become very clear that fear outsells sanity.

Related Posts:

About Doug MataconisDoug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway.
Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

“Some, such as Talking Points Memo, have already dismissed this criticism of Islam’s appearance at the rally as a “right wing” concern, but there does seem to be somewhat of a disconnect between a rally calling for rationality in political discourse and a singer who once endorsed the idea of murdering someone for writing a book.”

Yusuf has not retracted any statements he made about the fatwa and Rushdie, but has said the comments he made on Hypotheticals television program were “in hindsight … in bad taste”, but “part of a well-known British national trait … dry humour on my part.”

He went on to say:

Providentially, they kept in one important response to a final question posed directly to me by Geoffrey Robertson QC. At the end of the debate he asked me to imagine if Salman Rushdie was taken to court in Britain and the Jury found him ‘not guilty’ of any crime – Blasphemy or otherwise – and dismissed the case, what I would do. I clearly stated that I would have to accept the decision and fully abide by the law! And that was no joke.

On other occasions he has maintained his innocence and claimed to be a victim of media misinterpretation. In a 2000 Rolling Stone magazine interview:

I’m very sad that this seems to be the No. 1 question people want to discuss. I had nothing to do with the issue other than what the media created. I was innocently drawn into the whole controversy. So, after many years, I’m glad at least now that I have been given the opportunity to explain to the public and fans my side of the story in my own words. At a lecture, back in 1989, I was asked a question about blasphemy according to Islamic Law, I simply repeated the legal view according to my limited knowledge of the Scriptural texts, based directly on historical commentaries of the Qur’an. The next day the newspaper headlines read, “Cat Says, Kill Rushdie.” I was abhorred, but what could I do? I was a new Muslim. If you ask a Bible student to quote the legal punishment of a person who commits blasphemy in the Bible, he would be dishonest if he didn’t mention Leviticus 24:16.

On his personal spiritual website he wrote:

I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini–and still don’t. The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.

When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that–like both the Torah and the Gospel–the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you’re looking for them.[10] However, the application of such Biblical and Qur’anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole…

Speaking as a Brit (albeit perhaps one lacking in characteristic dry humour…) I have to say that I think most of my compatriots who remember back to that time would say that his narrative on his stance re. Rushdie has been quite conveniently modified after the fact. Certainly if it was dry British humour it was a brand of dry British humour that was impenetrable to pretty much everyone in Britain other than him. I’d also note that his comments at the time (and subsequent attempt to scuttle away from them) were pretty characteristic of a lot of people involved in British Islamic politics – a combination of inflammatory rhetoric and tacit threat, combined with a very careful effort to stay just on the legal side of incitement, and then later expressions of wide-eyed innocence and horror at the notion that anyone could possibly be so prejudiced as to think they were advocating anything other than a message of peace and healing. It’s a pretty standard, dismal pattern. You don’t have to endorse the Weekly Standard/Frank Gaffney view of the world to recognise that there are a lot of white liberals on both sides of the Atlantic who will bend over backwards to accept the most benign possible narrative when it comes to this sort of thing, even if Occam’s Razor suggests that it’s probably a load of self-serving hooey. I’m not sure that Stevens should have been banned from entering the USA, I don’t think he’s that “hardcore”. But for all that I wouldn’t have him in my house.

Does this mean Jon Stewart is some sort of evil fifth columnist? No, not at all. But nobody is obliged to give Yusuf Islam a platform and (certainly on this side of the pond), I don’t think it would only be conservatives who would take the view that it was an error of judgement. And I don’t think the dismissive response of some on the U.S. Left to concerns relating to the past of the man who was Cat Stevens reflects particularly well on them. Just because Michael Goldfarb says something, doesn’t make it wrong (well, sometimes, anyway).

” I have to say that I think most of my compatriots who remember back to that time would say that his narrative on his stance re. Rushdie has been quite conveniently modified after the fact.”

Well, it’s not like he rewrote the Book of Leviticus is it? He claims he was just explaining the tenants of Islamic law.

And seriously, we are talking about opinions of the statements based on the British press which has an incredible sense of humor it seems.

“You don’t have to endorse the Weekly Standard/Frank Gaffney view of the world to recognise that there are a lot of white liberals on both sides of the Atlantic who will bend over backwards to accept the most benign possible narrative when it comes to this sort of thing, even if Occam’s Razor suggests that it’s probably a load of self-serving hooey.”

Benefit of the doubt? Or properly placed skepticism of a, shall we say, slightly xenophobic populace stirred up by what is likely the most irresponsible “press corps” at the time? I’d say Jerry Jeff Walker might have had it right.

This seems pretty straight forward.

“I wish to express my heartfelt horror at the indiscriminate terrorist attacks committed against innocent people of the United States yesterday. While it is still not clear who carried out the attack, it must be stated that no right-thinking follower of Islam could possibly condone such an action. The Qur’an equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of the whole of humanity. We pray for the families of all those who lost their lives in this unthinkable act of violence as well as all those injured; I hope to reflect the feelings of all Muslims and people around the world whose sympathies go out to the victims of this sorrowful moment.”

At least someone note the irony of spending more time discussing the twenty year old statements of one of the show’s guest entertainers than Stewart’s message at the end about how the country is poorly served by the burying of important discussions with meaningless arguments over tangential stuff like . . .